The Fraud of FTC Worlds - How FTC & FIRST have failed me forever.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Agreed. In my opinion the only reasons for a replay is a field fault. If a ref missed a call, but realizes it, then it's not a valid reason to replay. Fix the score and move on. Replaying the match is a waste of everyone's time if we know what the outcome should have been.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Instead, I want to summarize what was discussed earlier in this thread.

For the 2105 season, whether to conduct a replay in the situation being discussed wasn't a matter of opinion. It was a matter governed by the rules.

You and the authors of the rules essentially agree about this.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by gblake

I'm not disagreeing with you. Instead, I want to summarize what was discussed earlier in this thread.

For the 2015 season, whether to conduct a replay in the situation being discussed wasn't a matter of opinion. It was a matter governed by the rules.

You and the authors of the rules essentially agree about this.

Yup. We do, on this partiular matter. I'm still saying the same thing I was six pages ago. That's part of why this thread has rubbed me wrong this entire time, and why that petition floating around irritates me, even if it has some good fragments of points.

[MichaelMcQuinn]

Originally Posted by Nemo

I had a chance to referee an FLL event this year and thought the conferences at the end of the matches were great. The teams and referees go through the scoring chart and verify that it's right at the end of each match. Teams walked away from the matches knowing what deductions were made and what they got credit for, and the students corrected my inevitable mistakes.

I do think it would be worth exploring options for correcting human errors that are bound to occur. I would entertain the option of an FLL style conference at the end of a match to let the teams verify the scoring. That could correct simple numerical errors such as, for example, assigning points to the wrong alliance for end game. Something like that swings a match, and with the current system there's no recourse if mistakes like that happen. It's unnecessary for it to be that way. For some types of errors, it would be an easy discussion and both sides would agree that the points went to the wrong alliance. In some scenarios, I could picture a team clarifying a penalty and admitting that "actually we did XYZ, it wasn't the other alliance." And realistically, sometimes the alliances will disagree and they'll have to just accept what the head referee says like we have now. At least they'd hear the reasoning straight from the ref. "I called a G99 because you did ABC." I'm not proposing a solution to those judgment situations, because human judgment by referees is going to have to take care of those. BUT, I do think a quick conference could help with an error that everybody agrees was an error, and then it can just be resolved quickly and without a bunch of bad feelings.

I am not offering any opinion on whether the scenario in this year's controversial match was an obvious error or not. I am just musing on a process change that I think could help to catch certain human errors and improve the integrity and positive experience of the competition.

It would be a tricky balance, because you'd have some people pushing the limits of grace and professionalism while other people would find a decent balance between competitiveness and respecting the volunteers and the process.

Maybe I'm wrong and this would put undue stress on volunteers. There seems to be an idea that revealing the scoring breakdowns would be bad for volunteers. But I think that would be a welcome bit of transparency, and I think it's unfortunate that currently there's no mechanism for identifying and correcting mistakes that naturally happen occasionally.

Could you expand more on how you would take a FRC Game like Aerial Assist, which is scored on the dot, and have a conference with all the teams like FLL? How does it work in FLL?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by MichaelMcQuinn

Could you expand more on how you would take a FRC Game like Aerial Assist, which is scored on the dot, and have a conference with all the teams like FLL? How does it work in FLL?

As far as how it works in FLL... It's been a while since I reffed a couple FLL tournaments, but in essence the kids and the refs check over the field and see what's been placed (or displaced) for how many points.


For Aerial Assist (or Ultimate Ascent, or Rebound Rumble), the only way you'd be able to do something like that would be to have one extra display on somebody's screen, something like X scored Y in manner Z for ABCD points, broken down for the entire alliance (I wouldn't have both alliances on the same screen as a default). Or, more likely: Y was scored in manner Z. To pick on AA, I would probably use the LAST screen from each cycle for each alliance--the one right before "submit"--and have that in miniature times however many cycles were scored.

For Recycle Rush (or Logomotion, Rack 'n' Roll, or Triple Play), it's a lot easier...

[gblake]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

... that petition floating around ...

Scooby Doo says, "Ruh??? Rhat Rhetition?"

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by gblake

Scooby Doo says, "Ruh??? Rhat Rhetition?"

The petition can be found here: https://www.change.org/p/first-for-i...nd-systematic?

The value and analysis of said petition wil be left to the reader.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

The petition can be found here: https://www.change.org/p/first-for-i...nd-systematic?

The value and analysis of said petition wil be left to the reader.

I very much disagree with request (demand?) 1C.

"c) A "No Callback" clause whereas penalties not called during a match cannot be "added" into scores post-match; such a situation warrants a replay"

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Gregor

I very much disagree with request (demand?) 1C.

"c) A "No Callback" clause whereas penalties not called during a match cannot be "added" into scores post-match; such a situation warrants a replay"

a match has almost always been defined roughly as
MATCH – a two (2) minute and thirty (30) second period of time in which ALLIANCES play RECYCLE RUSH
this no callback clause would mean if a robot were to detach a piece on the field and nobody noticed till field reset they could get away with it. This would mean ref's would have the additional job of focusing on specific robots and seeing if any bits or bobs fell off.

[Foster]

It's sad that you need to sign it before you can comment on it.

I think this is the wrong thing to do. The hype around this does not warrant the change in the rules they want.

/sigh

[gblake]

Folks - I'm sorry that I asked about that petition - Now that I have read it, I can't unread it; so the best I can do is ignore it. - On multiple levels, it is a dead-on-arrival, embarassing mess. - Please just let it fade away - Blake

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by gblake

Folks - I'm sorry that I asked about that petition - Now that I have read it, I can't unread it; so the best I can do is ignore it. - On multiple levels, it is a dead-on-arrival, embarassing mess. - Please just let it fade away - Blake

Agreed.

Interestingly, I learned from the petition comments that there is a vocal group of disgruntled Coaches/Parents from the greater Sacramento area that are dissatisfied with the quality of Judging at their local FTC events.

Also, if you are ever interested in a forum where only one side's opinions are voiced, create a change.org petition and read the comments...

-Mike

[EricH]

I agree with Mike and Blake.

1a: This is a technical nightmare that, probably 90% of the time, isn't going to make a difference other than the event ends later.
1b: See "question box".
1c: So... if I, as a ref, see a foul in the last 1 second and can't call it before the match stops (for example, my tablet locks out the foul count), it doesn't get counted/called? What if it's the petition starter's team being the victim of a pin... and that non-call is the reason they lose? Hmm... makes you think, doesn't it? All kinds of problems with this one.
2: Fair... but again, a logistical mess. My proposal would be to further separate the FTC and FRC championship events. (Also see: Championsplit making more FTC spots)
3: "testimonials" and "reasonable debate" can easily turn into "flamewar" due to emotions.

4: Don't get me started. All I'll say is that there are mechanisms already in place for this. Conflicts of interest are known to all parties that need to know about them. And, just for the record: I have been known to pull myself out of discussions involving teams I'm affiliated with, by simply not entering them.

5: That's the ONLY thing I can agree with, potentially. Maybe not mandatory change, but a mandatory discussion of the call within the zebra herd, for all referees who saw something.



I have one other, final, statement.

If you think that the referees are the problem, YOU are the solution. Volunteer as a referee. Or a judge. Or an inspector. The other side has its own horror stories.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by MichaelMcQuinn

Could you expand more on how you would take a FRC Game like Aerial Assist, which is scored on the dot, and have a conference with all the teams like FLL? How does it work in FLL?

Certainly Aerial Assist would pose a set of issues. FTC hasn't really had games like that, though. Quite a bit of the information necessary to calculate the score is sitting on the field at the end of the match in FTC games.

I've only done the one FLL event, but we simply talked to the teams and explained the scoring at the end of each match. We had a checklist that listed each mission, and I told them how many points they got for which things, then we all signed the paper. If they had missed some points that they thought they had, I explained why. In a couple of cases the students pointed out a mistake that I made, I agreed with them, and I changed it.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Nemo

I've only done the one FLL event, but we simply talked to the teams and explained the scoring at the end of each match. We had a checklist that listed each mission, and I told them how many points they got for which things, then we all signed the paper. If they had missed some points that they thought they had, I explained why. In a couple of cases the students pointed out a mistake that I made, I agreed with them, and I changed it.

FLL has paper scoring as described above. Almost all points are determined based on the condition of the field at the end of the game. There's an occasional exception for a mission that is scored as it is completed.

FRC has been scoring near-real-time for several years now, either automatically or by entering it on tablets. Scores can be corrected post-match if needed - if something was missed before the buzzer, or if something was entered incorrectly.

When I made my comments about considering a replay in FTC (way upthread), I mentioned that I didn't know the FTC game. When it was posted that there was a scoring error, I wrongly assumed that there was some kind of automatic scoring that had failed. That would have been the basis for a replay. But it now sounds to me that the scoring was manually done based on field conditions. In that is the case, there could be some kind of team review of the scores like FLL. But remember, in FLL there's only one ref marking the score sheet. If the FTC scores are based on the observations of more than one ref, then the GDC probably figured that was the accuracy check and a separate team sign-off wasn't needed.